Archbishop offers ‘10 commandments’ for Catholics online

Archbishop Eamon Martin encourages faithful to use social media to evangelise

Archbishop Eamon Martin, Coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh, has released ’10 commandments’ for Catholics using the internet which include using “digital smiles”, “avoiding aggression” and accepting criticism.

The first ‘commandment’ on the list is: “Be positive and joyful. Offer ‘digital smiles’ and have a sense of humour. Remember that it is the ‘joy of the Gospel’ that we are communicating, so, as Pope Francis says: no ‘funeral faces’ or ‘sourpusses.’”

Other suggestions include “strictly avoid aggression and ‘preachiness’”, “have a broad back when criticisms and insults are made,” and “be missionary, be aware that with the help of the internet, a message has the potential to reach the ends of the earth in seconds”.

The ’10 commandments’ are preceded by a lengthy post by Archbishop Martin in which he discusses “the challenges and opportunities for new media in evangelisation”.

“I am going to take it for granted that all of us here accept the necessity of people of faith to be involved in new media if we want to make the Gospel widely known in today’s world,” he wrote.

“Christians always made use of all forms of media to spread the good news – whether it be parchments and scrolls, high crosses, art, stained glass, illuminated manuscripts, the printing, television or radio. We must welcome the use of so-called ‘new media’ in this task.

“The internet has become like the nervous system of our culture, in which more and more people are expressing and exploring their identity, picking up and discarding their values and attitudes, expressing their feelings and prejudices, befriending and unfriending each other, measuring each other’s status and importance, relevance and appearance. If our young people and people are living in this gigantic network, then we, as people of faith need to be in there, dialoguing with the inhabitants of this world, with the men and women who dwell in the web.”

Archbishop Martin also referred to the upcoming World Cuommunications Day and Pope Francis’s position on evangelisation.

“In his message for the 48th World Communications Day, Pope Francis speaks about ‘Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter,’” the Archbishop wrote.

“There is a temptation to see evangelisation in the new media as simply bombarding people with religious messages. Pope Francis encourages us to go beyond this. He challenges us to think about how we can effectively encounter people and witness to them in, and using, new media.”
Here are Archbishop Martin’s digital media principles in full:

1. Be positive and joyful. Offer ‘digital smiles’ and have a sense of humour. Remember that it is the ‘ joy of the Gospel’ that we are communicating, so, as Pope Francis says: no ‘funeral faces’ or ‘sourpusses’!

2. Strictly avoid aggression and ‘preachiness’ online; try not to be judgemental or polemical – goodness knows, there is enough of this online already! Instead, try Pope Francis’ approach of ‘tenderness and balm’.

3. Never bear false witness on the internet.

4. Remember ‘Ubi caritas et amor’. Fill the internet with charity and love, always giving rather than taking. Continually seek to broaden and reframe discussions and seek to include a sense of charity and solidarity with the suffering in the world.

5. Have a broad back when criticisms and insults are made – when possible, gently correct.

7. Establish connections, relationships and build communion. Church has always been about ‘gathering’. In this, it is worth considering an ecumenical presence for the Christian churches online. The internet tends to be a place of ethical and intellectual relativism, and often of aggressive secularism. The scandal of disunity among Christians can be easily exploited and exaggerated. Therefore we must seek to share resources so that we can have a powerful Gospel witness. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people started noticing online: ‘See how these Christians love one another’.

8. Educate our young to keep themselves safe and to use the internet responsibly.

9. Witness to human dignity at all times online. Seek, as Pope Benedict once said, to ‘give a soul to the internet’. We are well aware of the pervasive prevalence of pornography on the internet which can ‘pollute the spirit’, destroy and degrade human sexuality and relationships, reduce persons to objects for gratification, draw millions into the commodification and commercialisation of sex, feed the monster that is human trafficking.

10. Be missionary, be aware that with the help of the internet, a message has the potential to reach the ends of the earth in seconds. In this regard, let us foster and call forth charisms in younger committed people who understand the power and potential of the net to bear witness.

COMMENT POLICY

The Catholic Herald comment guidelinesAt The Catholic Herald we want our articles to provoke spirited and lively debate. We also want to ensure the discussions hosted on our website are carried out in civil terms.All commenters are therefore politely asked to ensure that their posts respond directly to points raised in the particular article or by fellow contributors, and that all responses are respectful.We implement a strict moderation policy and reserve the right to delete comments that we believe contravene our guidelines. Here are a few key things to bear in mind when commenting…

•Do not make personal attacks on writers or fellow commenters – respond only to their arguments.•Comments that are deemed offensive, aggressive or off topic will be deleted.•Unsubstantiated claims and accusations about individuals or organisations will be deleted.•Keep comments concise. Comments of great length may be deleted.•We try to vet every comment, however if you would like to alert us to a particular posting please use the ‘Report’ button.Thank you for your co-operation,The Catholic Herald editorial team

Then your parish church’s board is inaccurate and is suffering from being rather ‘local’. There are plenty of people who do not understand the origins of the term and how it is still used as an insult by some.

Simply, it is historically an insult, it has never been used outside of areas that had a strong anti-Catholic bias at some time and has never been used as an official title by the Catholic Church.

I think this is a stronger argument than your local parish’s notice board.

And why are Catholics doubted when they point out that some terms are insulting but every other group in society are drenched in apologies should this happen, followed by ‘How would you like to be known?’ Just wonderin’.

Hegesippus

Perhaps the Archbishop has overly influenced the moderator here, regarding his “number 5″.

Some, particularly those of a more sceptical bent, seem to have little trouble when it comes to displaying anti-Catholic content, ad hominems and unjust accusations, which remain on the forum. However, several of my posts answering them have been deleted on other CH pages and I would be very interested to know what the issue is!

I genuinely find this a concern.

toft roger

You were certainly patient with me. Right, this site is not one I should use given my absence of belief in Christian teaching. Point taken. Will stop now.

Tony Efflaviam

He closed it down. At least he did it in English, whereas your exculpation of the Bishop is in incomprehensible jargon.

Todd Flowerday

Hardly. Deacon Nick closed down his own blog. He may well have had the choice to be disobedient, but he chose loyalty and obedience.

John McArthur

No I mean the teaching of your own Church regarding religious liberty that had to be learned the hard way. The standard smoke and mirror model of lousy catholic apologists is to create a straw man , i.e “millions were not burnt at the stake” etc. The excesses of the Inquistion began with the Theodosian decrees from the late 4th/early 5th century. You are harking back to a more brutal age and you certainly do not represent the RCC in your viewpoints. And leave the “anti-Catholic” paranoia card alone, it does nothing to enhance your argument.

When you read the results of your search, John, you will find that most of the documents regard ecumenical issues, so my point stands. Those that do not clearly are written or translaated by those as historically aware as the designer of your local parish’s notice board.

To be very clear, the Catholic Church has never regarded itself as the “Roman Catholic Church”. Any use is mistaken or in seeking to clarify that it is not one of the protestant groups.

Will you now acknowledge the very contemporary consideration in my final paragraph?

And it’s a pity that you had to spoil your post with the presumptuous ad hominem at the end.

Hegesippus

Getting past your clear attempt to insult, still using the offensive ‘RCC’, your attempt to brand me with ‘paranoia’ does no justicve to any point you make. Where I hoped for a balanced debate, it is clear that ad hominem and polemic will be used to “strengthen” your points. Are all apologists ‘lousy catholic apologists [sic]’?

No serious and accurate Catholic apologist claims that ‘millions were burnt at the stake’ because the serious historians have consistently shown that to be a complete fabrication. I have even offered serious historians as sources.

AS for who I represent, I am merely pointing out errors in an attack on the Catholic Church and historical accuracy in general. That one may be able to pinpoint a few specific issues in a period of over a thousand years does little to justify a broad and sweeping attack that is not supported by unbiased academics.

I will happily continue if posts address the issue, not “the man”.

John McArthur

You suggest that I am anti-Catholic by using the Roman prefix. I show over 700 documents on the Vatican’s own web site using the prefix. You are basically accusing leaders of your Church of being anti-Catholic! You are clearly wrong in calling all these people “anti-Catholic” and I give you plenty of evidence. Therefore when I say you are a poor chronicler I am not making a personal attack on you but simply making a well reasoned observation. Thankfully you do not live in the era of the Inquisition because I’m sure a zealous inquisistor would find cause for great concern regarding the attacks you have made on the whole of the church hierarchy by calling them anti-Catholic. If you are Catholic but not Roman, i.e not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then please say and I will adjust my responses accordingly.

Hegesippus

‘when I say you are a poor chronicler I am not making a personal attack on you’

Uh-huh.

Your whole argument rests upon my ‘Any use is mistaken or in seeking to clarify that it is not one of the protestant groups.’ being synonymous with ‘attacks you have made on the whole of the church hierarchy by calling them anti-Catholic’.

Uh-huh x2.

‘Thankfully you do not live in the era of the Inquisition because I’m sure a zealous inquisistor [sic] would find cause for great concern…’ What makes you so sure, John?

Seriously, what information do you have that makes you so sure that you have this right? Please provide evidence that ‘in the era of the Inquistion’ any Catholic in communion with the See of Peter ever accepted the term ‘Roman Catholic’.

And, finally, please ponder the terminology: to say ‘Roman’ is to specify a location/grouping/preference, but “catholic” means “universal”. So does the “specific universals” make any sense to you? “Catholic Church” means “Universal Church”, strongly pointing to the “Whole Church”, which Jesus willed. It takes no specifying adjective.

Ronk

Not only the Irish, but all Catholics have the greatest respect for the Holy Name of our Divine Lord and Saviour, which is so often misused such as the constant over-use of it by many Protestants for the most trivial reasons. We use it only when genuinely necessary. In this case it goes without saying that all these actions are imitations of our Lord.

Should you happen to wish to respond to any of my points in the future, John, please feel free to do so.

peepsqueek

You say anything that disagrees with someone up in the Office, they will delete your post. Example:

Mythology -Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.

Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.“

Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.

Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.

Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.

Hegesippus

The content (and purpose) of your post is a complete non-sequitur!

I’m not sure of your sources but the copycat claims have been long debunked.

Please consider if it take 2000 years for humanity to discover these supposed plagiarised beliefs. As the current generation is probably the least educated about classical tales for at least a thousand years, this idea of Christianity being fabricated from a patchwork of pagan tales has grown. Only a return to a decent classical education can help this but here’s a few sources on this issue:

Mithra‘s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.

Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.

Buddha‘s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.

Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.

Hegesippus

You start your argument with your conclusion.

If you actually supported this with sources that were verifiable and trustworthy, this could work for you. But you didn’t. So it’s only an a priori judgment that invalidates your finding.

I point this out as your previous claims are shown to be wrong by my sources. As you have not responded to the sources I offered, I presume that you just ignoring evidence and flooding the argument with more highly questionable data. However, you can even claim that the moon is blue but it still don’t make it so!

As for your argument that ‘Christianity is an invention’ because other “spiritual” beliefs have elements of Christianity, this proves absolutely nothing. Consider this hypothesis: Satan works out a number of elements of God’s plan, which was already available to the angelic beings and puts 2+2 together to work out some more…he decides that a good stunt is to mimic as much of these as possible so as to trick gullible later people, such as your very self, peepsqueek, into believing that ‘Christianity is an invention’. If this is true, you have a problem, peepsqueek.

So, rationally, where you are at is that there is an invention (falsehood). Your position or Christianity, for they contradict. Without further evidence, peepsqueek, your position is not as strong and as well-established as Christianity. Nowhere near it. I’ll stick with my Christian faith in God, thanks.

If you can discard your a priori position that ‘Christianity is an invention’ then you will be able to look at the evidence of Christianity vs other “spiritual” beliefs. I include atheism/agnosticism/whateverism in that.

God bless!

peepsqueek

I started my argument with a statement and then helped to support it, by giving you a whole host of fabricated fantasies that other people wrote long before the Jesus fantasy.

Have you ever been on “Jury Duty”? Neither the lawyer for the defense or the prosecution was at the scene of the crime. The Jury has to make up its mind based on all procurable evidence.

I do not need evidence to ask the questions, you need unquestionable evidence to make your argument valid. I know people that believe in Adam and Eve and the creation of man, which was written 3,500 hundred years ago. Collective science agrees that human bones, found in East African excavation, are well over a million years old. Neither one of us was there, yet you believe the biblical story when scientific evidence does not support it.

peepsqueek

People salary teachers to tell little children that if they do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior they will not get into Heaven. They salary teachers to tell little children that if they do not accept Islam they will not get into Heaven. It is all implanted identity, and reaffirmed a thousand times since childhood, just like sectarianism, sexism, racism, etc.

How do I claim this?
Para 1, use of the word fantasies/fantasy
Para 3, strange first sentence that is not true on 2 counts – you neither are asking questions, you are making judgments AND I do not ‘need unquestionable evidence to make your argument valid’ for that is not logical validity but content accuracy, 2 different things.
Para 3, this is a Catholic forum so please learn about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Adam & Eve, etc.: we are not protestant fundamentalists. There is, believe it or not, a big difference!
Para 3, there is no basis for the metaphysical to be supported by the physical. A real and very serious category error, so please avoid demands that faith becomes subservient to “science”, especially when the latter is fully dependent upon not only a rather limited amount of understanding but also often misapplied use of its own standards.

As for your last point, if that’s what you believe,you go for it, but redefining reality to suit your argument will not win you converts!

And exactly why are you posting all of your theories on a Catholic forum, ignoring most of the points made to you in reply to someone who was not writing originally about what you are offering?

God bless you!

Hegesippus

And “tolerance” that does not tolerate those who disagree, eh?!

Shall we coin “tolerancism”?

After all, your attempt to convert Catholics to atheism does show an intersting attitude that is perchance an ‘implanted identity’ caused by certain people in your life experience…

At least Catholicism has a working, consistent and developed understanding of reality.

I’m sure you would deny this but you have shown a distinct lack of understanding of Catholic teaching so I suggest you read a couple of hundred pages of Balthasar, Sheed, Ratzinger, or many others. If you can prove them wrong without using an a priori premise then you win!

But if you think that the minimalism of atheism’s rejection system is correct and allows you to name-call those with a developed understanding of reality then I hope that you get past this one day.

God bless!

peepsqueek

“Redefining reality to suit your argument”, just the opposite, it is called- using reality to make an argument. You couched it as “redefining reality” to suit your argument. And your argument is weak, as anyone can see it is a manipulation, without facts.

“The law of contradiction means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be non-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth. All logic depends on this simple principle.”

peepsqueek

Again, you are judging me instead of yourself. “your attempt to convert Catholics to atheism”?? Atheists simply questions your faith. You should include atheists if you truly want objective questioning of faith and dialog. “A wise man always questions himself first”

Hegesippus

I recognise that at no time have you actually engaged with what I have written but merely proclaimed it wrong, even calling upon a host of invisibles – ‘And your argument is weak, as anyone can see it is a manipulation, without facts.’

Facts. Oh, yes, those things. Teenagers believe that by saying ‘FACT’ after their statement it automatically makes it so. If we avoid the word ‘fact’,which you have only just introduced (and certainly not defined!), we can speak of Truth. You need to realise that there is more to life than what is proclaimed from a laboratory or an atheist website!

As for logic, it remains that there is the logical structure of a syllogism and there are the component parts (premises and conclusion). You nice quote does not reflect this but deals with another issue. A valid argument needs both a proper structure and accurate content to have any value.

And why exactly have you decided to start this little debate here and now? Just wonderin’…

God bless you deeply

Hegesippus

Okay, oh innocent one…

Why have you decided to question me on a Catholic forum, answering a post totally unconnected with any point you have made, seven months after my post was written?

So you are merely ‘question[ing] my faith’ as you put it? Why? Who am I to you and who are you to me?

Thus I do not believe your innocent explanation of helping me to ‘question my faith’. As one who happily questions his faith and does not need the “help” of a random and accusative stranger who fails to engage with what I write, I suggest that you take your own advice and question your own faith, you know, the belief that you know better than me and your (negative) belief in no God and your (positive) belief in sola scientia.

And no, I’m not judging you but what you write. And rejecting it.

God bless you!

peepsqueek

A fact is something that everyone can agree without any further argument. It is a fact that the best [known] way to treat very serious infections is with antibiotics (medical science). Next time your children get a very serious infection, you know in your hear, that good believers die everyday without antibiotics. Today 99% of people with very serious infections are cured, both believers and non-believers, both the good and the bad, both the rich and the poor.

peepsqueek

The problem is that you reject what I say without thinking it through, as you are [programed] by your faith to block out rational questioning. So I repeat: You should include atheists if you truly want objective questioning of faith and dialog.

To your other point, I am an old man who has been through war, traveled the world, had my own business, and raised a family. I live a clean and honest life, and still faithful to my wife all these years. I now have the time to question the world I live in, and it is not limited to this Catholic forum. I have plenty of Islamists that protect their faith by illogical arguments no differently than you do. I see both democrats and republicans playing the same games, because they have already made up their minds, regardless of the issues. Don’t you ever question authority?

Hegesippus

Hahaha!
That old chestnut!
‘[Programed] [sic!] by your faith’
So funny!

Okay, answer me this: why should I listen to someone who is trying to “enlighten” me when he displays practically no understanding of faith, Catholic Church teachings, authority in the Catholic Church and, most importantly….me!?

Straw man, sir, straw man. You are attacking something of which you have painted a distorted picture. E.g. your understanding of Catholics and Scripture on another post.

It is, sadly, yourself who has been programmed to think of Catholics in such a way. If Catholicism is illogical, prove it! You came onto a Catholic forum for what purpose (how many times shall I ask this?!)?

Your points, sadly, have been of the run-of-the-mill type that show that your sources are typical and full of misunderstandings and error. Do I ever question authority? Ummm… do you?!

God bless!

Hegesippus

Yeah, point being best KNOWN, not the best. The same antibiotics are seriously damaging our long-term ability to fight off infections both as individuals and collectively.

The fact is that facts are very subjective for some, if not many. And it all depends upon how you choose to receive them, hold them and present them.

Good example is: how many environmentalists are using chemical contraception? Heavy pollution of water, hormonal effects on everyone and mutated creatures in the water, never mind their own use of a Class A carcinogen?

As the ignorant environmentalist proclaims the goodness of contracepting in such a way, is it a FACT that said person is right, or merely just deluded? IOW, be careful of what you proclaim as fact!

As for your original claim to judge my facts, it is becoming the norm for you to proclaim me as suffering in understanding but never to offer a reason why. It would be good of you to explain why you are far superior to me, what criteria you are using and whether you can support this objectively.